Talk:Salvation Army

Fox News and CRT "controversy" in "Racism guide" section

The reference for this is tagged as needing to be replaced with a better one, except it never will be because this "controversy" is almost exclusively a manufactured one. Speaking about a "broader public controversy" in Wikipedia's voice is unacceptable as it plays into the narrative promoted by the American right that this is something that was a problem in the first place. It's fine to mention criticisms from the right and attribute them to sources like Fox, but not to use language that uncritically accepts the framing of the "controversy". I believe any reference to a "broader" controversy should be omitted. WP Ludicer (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge Penny sit-up and Four penny coffin into The Salvation Army, and instead to propose a merge with Homelessness in the United Kingdom#History DoubtfulPriority (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Penny sit-up and Four penny coffin into The Salvation Army. Both relate to broadly similar historic types of homeless shelter run by the Salvation Army, and neither the Penny sit-up nor Four penny coffin articles would seem to meet the general notability guidelines in isolation, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in The Salvation Army. DoubtfulPriority (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that neither short article demonstrates notability of these accommodation types. I'm less clear that they were distinctive types of Salvation Army service particularly. Both terms seem to have been used more broadly. I think I'd rather see them part of a longer article about provision for homeless people, perhaps Homelessness in the United Kingdom#History, though there's not much to that section at present. Or, honestly, with the paucity of information we have, deleted. Tacyarg (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

On reflection I'd probably agree with you; including in the Homelessness in the United Kingdom article might make more sense. I can see why a deletion might be suggested, but ideally this would be a last resort, and whilst they wouldn't stand up on their own as articles in their own right, there may be sufficient information to warrant them staying as useful context in another article. DoubtfulPriority (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Support the merge to alternative target; that is, to merge Penny sit-up and Four penny coffin to Homelessness in the United Kingdom#History. It would greatly help that target, too, which is sorely lacking content. The Salvation Army is also rather long to receive more content. Klbrain (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I will propose this alternative merge, and close the discussion here about merging with The Salvation Army, as the consensus is against this. DoubtfulPriority (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vestrian24Bio 09:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

---

The Salvation Army → Salvation Army – Its quite common for sources to not add the definite article or not capitalise it (ie, "the Salvation Army" rather than "The Salvation Army). Even a primary source didn't include the "the". And WP:NCCORP#Leading The states that definite articles "is not normally included in the article title". This has been done to Home Depot in 2024 as an example. JuniperChill (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:THE guidelines. For example, you would write "Jack worked for the Salvation Army" rather than "Jack worked for The Salvation Army". Yes, this is going back on my previous opinion on this in 2018, but I've become more knowledgeable about policy since then, mea culpa. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  You would also write "Ringo was the greatest of the Beatles", yet The Beatles. So maybe you were right all along. Srnec (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, but per WP:THE also says These conditions are sometimes met if the Wikipedia article name is: ... the official or commonly used name or nickname of a group. The 'The' is included in the logo of the group, and the they themselves consistently capitalise 'The' in running text. I appreciate this may appear to contradict WP:OFFICIAL but surely WP:THE takes precedence here. If Coca Cola gets it, so should The Sally Army. I suppose it's the 'sometimes' that we're arguing about... Also it's not a company, so WP:NCCORP won't apply; that policy doesn't mention charities. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  It does say and other types of corporation. When I clicked on that link, it does say that for the UK (which this charity originated from), a charity is "a type of company limited by guarantee". I've also taken a look at gov.uk and it says Usually companies limited by guarantee are ‘non-profit’ or registered as a charity. So charities (at least in the UK) are considered a company to the point WP:NCCORP would apply. Also, charities like the BHF and EACH have both the charity and company number listed at the bottom of the page. But its odd that WP:NCORP mentions charities. And SA is also a church. JuniperChill (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  That might be true for UK law, and it feels like it should apply. Maybe worth trying to get it added to the list at the top of the policy? YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Against, since the website and logo both say The Salvation Army Catfurball (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  And so does The Home Depot. But as I said earlier, the Wikipedia article has been called Home Depot since April 2024. My understanding is that article names should be referred to whatever independent/reliable sources say. WP:THE states that When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well (emphasis added). I've done a Google News search and these (independent) sources don't capitalise the 'the':1 2 3 4 5 And the ones that do: 1 2 3 Additionally, references 203, 205 and 206 (per this revision) for instance say "the Salvation Army" (lowercase the). JuniperChill (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think WP:THE is written particularly well to be honest. The mentions of 'official' and use of 'sometimes' and 'almost' are a bit MOS:WEASELy if you ask me. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  While searching various councils regarding reduce/reuse/recycle, I've accidentally stumbled upon this saying "the Salvation Army":. It goes to show that independent sources often forget to realise that the is part of the company name. I'm guessing that WP:NCCORP is supplementing WP:AT (and within it, WP:COMMONNAME), just like WP:NCORP supplementing WP:GNG because the former is intended to clarify what sources are needed to have a Wikipedia article. JuniperChill (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per WP:THE. Very rarely capitalised in running text in reliable sources whatever they may themselves prefer. If we followed every organisation's own preference we'd be writing things very differently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Feels like you're pulling on WP:OFFICIAL here, when it's WP:THE we should be looking at. Again with These conditions are sometimes met if the Wikipedia article name is: .... the OFFICIAL (emphasis added) OR (more emphasis) commonly used name or nickname of a group, sports team or company (e.g., The Beatles, "The Invincibles", The Hershey Company. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Please note that the quote includes the word "sometimes". I also don't think we should be getting getting stuck on whether it's a corporation or a charity or a church, or UK-specific legal definitions. The same spirit should apply, and we all know the guidelines aren't phrased perfectly. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I did note it! See above. That's why it's not 'obvious' as some seem to think! YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed you did! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Both WP:OFFICIAL and WP:THE mandate against adding the definite article here. Looks to me more like the opposers are suggesting that the Salvation Army should be some sort of exception to our usual naming conventions. I'm not sure why. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  But OFFICIAL and THE contradict, as I pointed out. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, they really don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think Coca-Cola and Hersheys should be getting move reviews then. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Obvious support per above. It's typically "the Salvation Army", not "The Salvation Army". O.N.R. ^(talk) 16:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion and the common and proper name of this well-known organization. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It's certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:THE. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support - yet another example of how everything's simpler and easier when we just follow WP:THE Red Slash 17:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:THE is I think being misapplied above, and certainly needs a tweak to make that clear. We could not say Jack was a member of Salvation Army, that would be ungrammatical. A competent proofreader would correct that to Jack was a member of the Salvation Army. If so, rejecting this move proposal would be a step in the right direction. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • That really makes no sense. We don't say "Jack was a member of British Army" either! How is this any different? We commonly put the (uncapitalised) definite article in front of proper names of organisations in speech and writing. But an encyclopaedia article title is an entirely different thing. The fact you have chosen not to capitalise "The" in your example speaks volumes in any case. A competent proofreader would not correct it to "Jack was a member of The Salvation Army" because it just looks wrong, whatever the organisation itself may prefer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

    Yes, there is some tweaking required, as Wikipedia may not be entirely consistent on this point. I note that our article British Army (which you cite) currently starts out The British Army is the land warfare force of...

    Note of course that here it's The British Army.

    If it's any consolation (and it is to me), logicians have long had problems working this out. We deal with this a little at distribution of terms, but our coverage (rightly) reflects the state of scholarship, in which there is no consensus on a resolution. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

    Just to elaborate on how WP:THE applies to The British Army, let's try to restate the lead of British Army which currently reads The British Army is the land warfare force of the United Kingdom..

    That could be restated British Army is the land warfare force of the United Kingdom..... or could it? I do not think that is English. I think the The is required by English grammar. But in forming this opinion I am relying on modern linguistic theories and practices that prefer descriptive linguistics rather than the prescriptive linguistics of past years. This is the only approach that is scientific. I note that our article linguistics currently starts out Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

    I note that our article British Army (which you cite) currently starts out The British Army is the land warfare force of... Of course it does. That's a sentence! English capitalises the definite article at the beginning of a sentence, but not usually in the middle of a sentence. Our article is titled simply British Army, as it should be. How is this different from the Salvation Army? Do you advocate retitling every article title to add a definite article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

    No, I do not suggest adding The to every article title. I hope this clears that up. I don't see how the issue of capitalisation is relevant to this RM... Can you elaborate? Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    I would have expected you to be familiar with WP:THE. See item #2 at the top of that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    Yes, but the discussion here is whether WP:THE is helpful here, or whether (as I believe obviously) it would improve Wikipedia to retain the The here despite what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) says. Andrewa (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    Oh, I see; you're disagreeing with the guideline rather than exhibiting a lack of awareness of it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    No, I do not suggest adding The to every article title. I hope this clears that up. I don't see how the issue of capitalisation is relevant to this RM... Can you elaborate? So, you think we should add "The" here, but not to other articles, but don't explain why this should be an exception (other than the organisation itself seems to like it). And you don't understand why my comments on capitalisation are relevant, despite them being in response to you yourself saying that the British Army article begins with a capitalised definite article (which seems to me to be utterly irrelevant, because naturally it does). I think it's you who needs to elaborate, because I'm lost. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Abortion, WikiProject Christianity/Methodism work group, WikiProject Christianity/Holiness Movement work group, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WikiProject London, WikiProject Arminianism, WikiProject Religion, and WikiProject Organizations have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support: I disagree with the breadth of WP:THE, but it applies here. I agree the argument as made by TarnishedPath. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia would be improved if WP:THE were not to be applied here, then WP:IAR applies. Andrewa (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Reliable sources do not capitalize the 't' here. Jessintime (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It is "Salvation Army". Guz13 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel that most of the criticism focuses on LGBT subjects

But weren't there other controversies & criticisms? 1101 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)